Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition No.593 of 1984, decided on 22nd October, 1984.

(On appeal from the judgment dated 30‑4‑1984 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Writ Petition No.1154 of 1976).

‑‑‑Art.185(3)‑‑West Pakistan Foodgrain (Licensing Control) Order, 1957 read with Sugar Distribution Order, 1960‑‑Ration Depot holder‑ Appointed under Sugar Distribution Order, 1960‑‑Irregularity in sale of Atta‑‑Cancellation of licence impugned‑‑Action of department being covered by Memorandum issued by Government about duties of depot holders, held, in accordance with law‑‑Leave to appeal refused.

S.Shamim Abbas Bokhari, Advocate Supreme Court and Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

S.M. Zubair, A.A.G. Punjab for Respondents. Date of hearing: 22nd October, 1984.

.‑‑The petitioner has been running a ration depot in Karkhana Bazar, Gali No.4, Faisalabad, since 24th of April, 1964 and the licence in this respect was granted to him under the West Pakistan Food Grain (Licensing Control) Order, 1957. In pursuance of some complaint made against him a raid was carried out at his premises on 2‑12‑1966 and the raiding party recovered one maund of Atta in the adjacent house, which had been stored there by his Munshi. In response to the show‑cause notice issued to the petitioner he explained that the Atta belonged to his Munshi and the same had nothing to do with his ration depot. The explanation was not considered satisfactory and the District Magistrate, by his order dated 26‑12‑1966, cancelled the authorization. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the said order before the Commissioner, Sargodha Division, Sargodha, however, failed and the writ petition directed against the said two orders in the Lahore High Court also proved unavailing. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.

The main contention raised before us was that the petitioner was issued the authorization under the Sugar Distribution Order, 1960 and any irregularity in regard to the sale of Atta could not result in the cancellation of his authorization because admittedly that was not committed in respect of the sale of sugar. Consequently, the District Magistrate was not justified in canceling the authorization issued under the Sugar Distribution Order of 1960.

The same contention was raised before the Commissioner, Sargodha Division, but it was repelled on the ground that the Atta was being kept by the petitioner in his capacity as a depot holder even though he was appointed as such under the Sugar Distribution Order, 1960 and any irregularity committed in the performance of his duties whether in regard to the sale of sugar or in respect of the sale of Atta was to be attributed to him in his capacity as a depot holder and as such he could be punished under the Sugar Distribution Order of 1960, as envisaged in Government of West Pakistan, Food Department's memo. No.SOF‑Sugar/5(9)/60, dated 15‑12‑1966. Accordingly, his licence for the depot was rightly cancelled.

It, thus, appears that the department was relying upon the Government of West Pakistan Food Department's memo. No.S.O.F Sugar/5(9)/60,' dated 15‑12‑1966 in support of its action. The learned counsel for the petitioner could not establish before us. that the terms of this memorandum did not cover the present case. In fact, he did not even have the copy of this Memorandum with him, nor was he aware of its terms. In these circumstances, it is not possible to hold that the action of the Department was not covered by any law.

This petition must, therefore, fail and is, accordingly, dismissed hereby.

M.I. Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.